The first sentence seems clear. The tool we create and call “government” should “benefit” the future of humanity as much as possible. Depending on its design it affects well or poorly the creation and allocation of life-impacting resources. But I do not understand why Daedal2207 thinks that “The very word welfare is a fruit of a poisoned tree”. Could this be clarified?

Daedal2207 tells us that “It seems as though our country (and our world) is massively falling apart. We no longer are the moral leaders of our time.” Statistical evidence says otherwise. With few exceptions, this world is in a period of unprecedented economic growth and human health. In our country and elsewhere, facets of society have always faced significant negative forces. One of those harmful forces has to do with a confusion of clarity as to the meaning of “moral”. Is morality that which actually (measurably) works best to advance humanity, or is it more simply that which enables my group to feel good?

Related:
Daedal2207’s keen observations about “feeling secure” and “happiness” are worth examining. It should be noted that the examples of “happy countries” mentioned in the November National Geographic article are of relatively small populations. Their governments tend to be more directly sensitive to their citizen’s interests and directions. The idea that governments can “give their occupants a sense of purpose securely attached to feeling secure (health and financial security)”, and that this is correlated with citizen contentment and well-being, is apparently well founded. But what if the methods selected to enable citizens to “feel” secure are different from those that truly provide the greatest security?

Broadly, and in the most basic sense, those who are objectively most “secure” will have easiest access to needed resources. We, as observers “know”, often by name, people and groups who are needy. It makes great sense to structure our government to take resources from those who have and distribute them to those in need. Known individuals and identified groups are directly and quickly helped. We can feel good about ourselves because we believe that we have engaged in a loving, moral activity. But what if the act of assigning to government this supposedly moral duty creates a force that diminishes the overall availability of life-saving resources? Clearly then, growing numbers of citizens will in fact be less able to secure their needs. In human nature there is a point of “taxation” (perceived or real confiscation) beyond which every producer will reduce or stop producing. Government-activated disincentives then set into motion a process of diminishing resources. If one has position or influence in this form of government “friends” can be “helped”. But overall, growing numbers of those with the misfortune to be out of favor or out of sight will suffer.

Daedal2207 states that the governmental effort to provide a sense of security “is not in the service of redistribution of resources … but rather it is in the provision of means of access to basics like health and an income floor.” By increasing the quantity of resource relative to demand costs go down and thereby access is increased. An “income floor” can be responsibly provided only with a redistribution of resources from those with more to those who have less. To a degree this may be a good idea and the producers may not see the needed taxation as a disincentive. Harvard social scientist Charles Murray advocates a basic income floor, but only if other government welfare is ended.